Bishop Hill Shukman on windfarms
Jan 1, 2012 BBC Energy: wind Ocean Powerhouse was a BBC show about offshore windfarms broadcast a couple of days ago. It can be seen here if you can get the iPlayer. It's a strange show, focusing mainly on the assembly process for a wind turbine, with lots of "corblimeying" over the size of everything and the technical challenges involved. The music makes it feel like a corporate puff-piece and there were indeed several opportunities for the various companies involved to sell their wares. However, a measure of balance was achieved: in the shape of a short interview with Dieter Helm, who said that the whole idea of offshore wind is a bit stupid, particularly in the current economic climate, and by the summing up, in which narrator David Shukman left it as an open question as to whether there is actually a future for offshore wind.
In these terms then, this was a rather unusual programme for the BBC in that for the most part it avoided most of the usual green propaganda.
That said, Shukman did blot his copybook and in a very serious way. He reported that it would take 200 turbines to replace a conventional power station. He should probably have realised that his maths was going to be checked, and unfortunately for him it was. Via the Countryside Guardian email newsletter comes this from Emeritus Professor Peter Cobbold:
The turbines were 5MW Installed Capacity. So allowing for a load factor of 33%, their real output is one third of 5MW. That means it needs 600 windmills to replace a 1GW conventional power plant.
Again the need for back-up plant to cover the holes in wind power output is completely ignored.
I don't know about you, but I think if Shukman had reported that it was going to take 600 turbines to replace a conventional power station viewers would have gained a remarkable insight into the sheer insanity of offshore wind. The conflating of installed capacity of windfarms with their actual output is an problem that has been repeated so often over the years that it is hard to accept it as an error any longer.
Reader Comments (132)
George Wood @ Jan 2, 2012 at 1:58 AM
Indeed, a chilling comment, with the rest starkly reasoned - a great post - as are most of the informative comments on this thread.
Phillip Bratby
Many thanks. It is worse than I thought!
Happy New Year.
My preferred term is "Wind subsidy farms", on the grounds that that what they're built to generate. And they are incredibly efficient at that.
George Wood @ Jan 2, 2012 at 1:58 AM
IMO a large part of the thrust for smart meters is to provide a means for securing the information necessary for differential tax rates for different end uses of energy. The tax revenue stream from transport fuels is massive and if transport electrifies it will need to come from somewhere else.
The backup requirement for wind power is 100% due to dropout of the entire grid on occasion.
http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/chapter-3-1-powering-ontario/
If nothing else, Ontario proved that.
When scheduling power requirements IESO completely ignores wind generation capacity.
Bish is too kind. The latest figures we have from DECC show that offshore wind has a load factor of only 26% not 33%. Not all of this is usable as it comes in surges that the grid cannot cope with.
Why doesn't someone tackle the BBC on its error in e.g. its "points of view" messagboard or elsewhere? I would do it myself except if I was not already banned!
There have been several posts on Bishop Hill of campaigns against windfarms and the climate change act, http://repealtheact.org.uk/ being one of them.
Repeal the act have revamped their website which now contains this link http://www.countryguardian.net/Campaign%20Windfarm%20Action%20Groups.htm
So there seems to be no shortage of campaigns. Maybe more coordination and pubicity?
Jan 2, 2012 at 8:53 AM | Brownedoff:
You assert that "almost every time he stands up, he [PeterLilley] is immediately dismissed by his own "side"". No - it's not "his own side", it's the Coalition establishment. There are many Tory MPs (i.e. his real own side) who privately agree with him but are reluctant to say so for sadly obvious reasons. In different circumstances, several of them would make a good Energy and Climate Change Secretary. Lilley is different: he's a very senior MP, he's no longer ambitious (he was Social Security Secretary in the last Tory government) and he's an respected constituency MP in a very safe seat. So he can speak his mind - a privilege that, most unfortunately, is not available to many MPs these days.
The key question is this: might circumstances change? It's pretty obvious that you think not - gloomily assuming the UK is terminally committed to this absurd policy. You may even be right - I'm certainly not optimistic (see e.g. my post yesterday at 11:00 PM). But neither have I given up. Here are some reasons:
1. The realities of renewable energy and especially of wind power - examined in this excellent thread - are becoming increasingly better understood by voters. That will not be lost on MPs or on the Government.
2. The modest but real change of attitude at the BBC (e.g. the recent Panorama programme and the lack of green propaganda in Shukman's observations in "Ocean Powerhouse") suggests an adjustment of view amongst the chattering classes. And the Government will certainly take note of that.
3. The Treasury knows better than anyone that the UK's financial position is dire and that unnecessary expenditure must be curtailed. Hence Osborn'e recent comments (see my post above) and the FIT policy change. I think we'll see more of that in 2012.
4. I suspect Cameron was (a) surprised at how many of his MPs were willing to rebel over Europe (another subject where sceptical views were - until recently - forbidden) and (b) gratified by how his so-called "veto" of the eurozone treaty boosted his popularity. It's not impossible that he's considered (if only in passing) that a similar approach to AGW might have a similar effect. After all, poll after poll shows that few see it as an important issue.
5. I rather doubt that, given the public mood, the LibDems would sacrifice the Coalition (and, with it, their future) on the altar of climate change.
My point here is very simple: if circumstances do change, there is no need to go through the undoubted difficulty of repealing (or, Brownedoff, of changing) the Climate Change Act: as written, it contains the seeds of its own destruction - see my post yesterday at at 2:52 PM. (So, Jeremy Shiers, none of these campaigns is necessary.)
Let me say straight off that I hate the bloody things with a vengeance - but can I ask one thing - why do they have to be WHITE..?
Surely they would attain a tiny degree of acceptance if they were painted a bluey grey - to match the likey colour of the clouds and sky..?
Different discussion detail - is that windfarm (or whatever we're finally calling it) at Blyth Harbour REALLY the worst-performing in the UK..? I frequently pass the one near Turvey in Bedfordshire - either the blades are all stationary or turning languidly (presumably taking power from the grid to stop the bearings seizing). Cannot believe it ever generates more than enough to boil a kettle - anyone got the figures..?
David
If you know the name of the wind farm (or turbine), you can find its performance in terms of rolling load factor at the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) at http://www.ref.org.uk/energy-data. Assuming it's subsidised under the RO rather than the Fit scheme, then it will be here: http://www.ref.org.uk/roc-generators/.
The Blyth Harbour turbine has a rolling load factor of 9.1% after over 10 years of operation.
My last word for Harland And Wolfe shipyard
[snip_ mind your language please. BH].
They are going the same way as solar panels (they cant pay for themselfs)
Got 4 little words
"Offshore Shale Gas Exploration"
You got peace at last
{snip, ditto. BH}
Re Latimer
Remove the gubbins from the nacelles and rent them to Stylites. As for new names, what about boundary mixers?
Sorry "jAMSPID", I think your last post [2.33pm] was totally uncalled for no matter how angry you may feel. We all feel the anger but the object is to get even and win the argument.
The tone does not need to be lowered as reinforced by 'Athelstan' @ 09.35 today. "Indeed, a chilling comment, with the rest starkly reasoned - a great post - as are most of the informative comments on this thread."
Norfolk Dumpling:
Thanks for reminding us (via your reference to Athelstan @ 9:35 this morning) of George Wood's admirable post at 1:58 AM this morning. If he is only half right about "this absolute money wasting madness" (and I fear it's a lot more than half), Treasury officials (who are grappling with horrendous realities, are not stupid and are less tied to dogma than other civil servants) are going to notice sooner or later. I should have said that at point 3 of my post at 1:29 PM above. If I'm right, the prospects of a change of heart in Government (and thus of SoS in the DECC) would be enhanced. Nonetheless, it's still hard to be optimistic.
Jan 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM | Robin Guenier
I note that you have withdrawn your nomination of Peter Lilley as SoS at the DECC.
Good luck with waiting for the BBC and a small number of "courageous" MPs to tell the whole truth about the upcoming problems for the provision of reliable electricity supplies (at any price) as the penetration of intermittent renewable sources rises.
In any case, even if CCA 2008 was dumped tomorrow, the underling problem of the lack of provision of new, proper power stations will not go away.
Jan 2, 2012 at 6:03 PM | Brownedoff:
You might find it useful to read my posts before commenting on them: (a) I didn't nominate Lilley as SoS at the DECC and (b) I said nothing about "waiting for the BBC and a small number of "courageous" MPs to tell the whole truth ..."
My point (which you seem unable to grasp - perhaps because of your apparent assumption of coming doom) is simple: although I'm not optimistic, it's possible - for the reasons I've spelled out - that the government's climate change policy might change. And that, if it does, there's no need to repeal (or dump) the wretched CCAct. That's all.
But you quite right that, even if there is a change, the underlying problem of the lack of provision of new, proper power stations will not go away.
As a furriner (Australian) I am happy to be corrected on this, but I thought the UK government has already taken a tentative step back from its absurd renewable energy targets by saying that they will not act unless other countries do likewise? I dimly remember reading somewhere that the targets will be reviewed in 2013.
Thanks, johanna, you're right about that tentative step. Last October, Climate Change Minister Greg Barker announced a 2014 review. (The story's here.) Despite the UK's commitment to a 50% emissions cut by 2025, Barker announced that the Government will review the matter in 2014. He said:
It may not amount to much, but it's another indication that Brownedoff's total pessimism may be ill-founded.
Jan 2, 2012 at 11:05 PM | Robin Guenier
Whenever a Minister says that a review will be held, it is a foregone conclusion that the report of that review is already in draft form on the day of the announcement and it will confirm that the Government's policies are correct in every way, targets are being met and that electricity bills will be lower than ever.
WRT the shades of meaning implied by your "not optimistic" and my (according to you) "total pessmism", I recall some of the classic tv comedy gems, often repeated on Dave, taken from a BBC series transmitted in days of yore where the leading character would say something like:
Prime Minister Jim Hacker: Now look here, Humpy, in order to demonstrate the Government's total commitment to the modification/destruction of CCA 2008, next Wednesday at the end of PMQs, I am going to call upon all those present on the Government benches to join me on Westminster Bridge and jump into the Thames. I am sure there will be a 100% response.
Sir Humphrey: Ah, Prime Minister, I am not optimistic.
Prime Minister Jim Hacker: What, you mean it is impossible?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, Prime Minister.
Cue music, roll credits.
Jan 3, 2012 at 8:31 AM | Brownedoff:
Yes, I remember (and still enjoy) the "Yes Minister" series - especially popular in the higher echelons of the Civil Service. However, I doubt if the PM would refer to his Permanent Secretary as "Humpy".
BTW, am I wrong about your total pessimism? Is there perhaps a glimmer of optimism in there somewhere?
Jan 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM | Robin Guenier
I am not optimistic at all that these numpties will do the right thing.
May I draw to your attention this document published the other day, and the Exectutive Summary:
"Executive summary
1. The aim of Electricity Market Reform is to meet the significant long-term challenge of decarbonisation and to deliver our renewable energy targets, while maintaining secure and affordable electricity supplies."
If you go to page 45 you will see that there is massive amount of government work programmed right up to end December 2020, all founded on the premise that CCA 2008 is working correctly, as designed by SMG and that woman whose name escapes me for the moment, and which they voted for overwhelmingly in October 2008.
The chance of Dave coming to his senses before May 2015 is zero, and he and his mates are obviously expecting to be re-elected at that next election to follow through with the programme.
As we can see from IPCC ZOD, recently blown on the internet, AR5, which continues where AR4 left off, is already composed with spaces reserved in the chapter texts to include the supporting citations for the papers which they are busy scribbling now in order to get them in press before the deadline.
So, whatever the shade of government in the UK, the denizens will point out how right they were to enact CCA 2008, because AR5 will reinforce AR4, so there.
I think at this point I will give the space back to BH.
Jan 3, 2012 at 10:26 AM | Brownedoff:
Well, I certainly agree it's unlikely that "that these numpties will do the right thing". Were they going to, they'd have started by now. However, Osborne and even Barker seem to have noticed that no other country is following our absurd example. And that's why (remember the Climate Change Act 2008 Impact Assessment of 2009, especially section S2 - see my earlier post) I don't think the UK, although damaged, will experience total disaster.
But, yes, let's give the space back to His Grace.
Like Brownedoff I have no expectation that numpties or civil servants will do the right thing.
I spent much of 2011 talking to Environment Agency and Natural England about their policy of flooding UK to create saltmarsh. This is based on projections of rising sealevels based on AR4.
Curiously although these projections were made in 2006 and 2009 they start from 1990 so they can be compared with 20 years of observations. The projections are clearly wrong (i.e. way to high).
When I asked for any evidence of how fast sea levels are rising I was referred to projections.
When I pointed out that the projections were clearly wrong I was told that it was government policy for agencies like EA and NE to use DEFRA projections. So there is not even the slightest pretence at using science.
This is the sticking point, it is goverment policy. Who in civil service, DEFRA, EA, NE or whatever will challenge government policy. If they did wouldnt they lose their job and pension?
There doesn seem much incentive for a mp to stick head above parapet either.
Take care you don't do a Shukman as well by comparing wind 30% LFs with a hypothetical 100% LF from more conventional sources.
Typical load factors for more conventional power stations are 60 to 80%. This is because many that can will have to shut down overnight because of lower demand, and all need maintenance/suffer breakdowns.
So actually wind is only twice as bad, not three times as bad as maybe your post implies?
Mark, Edinburgh.
It is nowhere near as simplistic as you have portrayed.
Basically this is because, no matter what it states as instructions on the toy-box, wind generated power is STOCHASTICALLY INTERMITTENT AND ERRATIC and is totally UNRELIABLE. It has been technologically totally misleading because you can only guarantee a past AVERAGED performance which shows aero-generators (wind turbines) do not output anything near their declared Installed Power Capacity. They may rotate for 80% of the 8,760 hours of the year but the averaged retrospective output, defined by the Load Factor, according to DUKES2011, Table 7.4 is less than 22% Onshore and 30% Offshore.
On the other hand, a conventional power station declared as 1GW output will output 1GW on Demand, SECURELY and RELIABLY, whereby any Grid Control engineer can utilise this output power level 24/365 (unless under a maintenance regime) with its intrinsic dispatchability.
If you are interested, the nuclear power station Sizewell 'A', recently decomissioned, demonstrated a lifetime Average Load Factor of 74.76%, generating a continuous averaged 314MW for its 40 year lifetime as a declared 420MW power station (original design life of 25 years). The difference between the declared 420MW and 314MW is simply accounting for maintenance downtimes and upgrades during its lifetime.
Name me a wind power station with such unremitting output capability into the National Grid.
Again, for comparison, Sizewell 'A' gave 0.00314MW/metre2 whereas a 7 x 3.0MW wind power station can only manage 0.0000025MW/metre2.
Why do you think that some 70,000 Scots and some 2,500 English are without power during this period of high winds?
I don't think the 1,300 times worse-off performance wind turbines are doing much in the way of SECURE electricity supply, do you?
And then we have to consider the efficacy of exposed overhead lines on pylons in UK winds and weathers and ice. I speak as an engineer. Engineers know best about these things and we believe in people, not naked "power over the people".
Unfortunately, the comparisons made above apply to ALL renewables except perhaps, but small fry, 'run-of-the-river' hydro, simply affected by drought.
Numeric comparison of the output factor of an intermittent, uncontrollable energy source with grid priority to a dispatch-able plant which is throttled to match load demand is just nonsense.
Don't forget that the load factor is an average over time. The dispatchability factor, which is the estimate of a given amount of power being available at any particular time is nearer 10% or less, which is where the near 90% backup requirement comes from. It is indeed worse than we thought.
Cumbrian Lad
A dispatch-ability factor less than 100% means that the generating asset cannot be counted as available for meeting system capacity requirements. If the system does not have capacity of peak load plus 15% a catastrophic outage is likely. Conventional plant with less than full availability has to be taken out of the system and repaired or replaced. Plant that has 10% dispatch-ability when it is in good condition is just a toy.
If you have an automobile that runs 10% of the time when you need it you send it to the crusher.
Sorry to disappoint, Billy, but that is precisely what the "greeny" wind protagonists do; using selected averages, they make unequal comparisons between chalk and cheese. So I am using their chosen game approach to denounce their scams and exhibit their claims in the worst light.
Do you believe that 7 x 3MW aero-generators are "capable of supplying about 8,610 homes per annum"? (LF=0.22, av. annual home demand 4.7MWh)
I don't, because the inference by this remark is that the homes are supplied by the aero-generators in real time which is far from the true situation. Conventional generation supplies totally in real time.
No matter what the academics and statistics may argue, as a practised engineer, I consider that wind generation possesses absolutely NO capacity credit simply because of its stochastic intermittence and the fact that wind power does NOT equal out across the UK and its waters. Because of that it exhibits zero practical dispatchability.
Don't forget the auction process to have dispatchable power available with conventional generation. You can't do that with wind generation.
Norfolk Dumpling
Did you read my post? You are saying what I said with different words.
Wind generators are useless toys.
I understand, Billy, but in my world you cannot just say it, you have to categorically prove the point.
I did read your post and, because you did not expand the sense of your assertion fully, I thought your comment "nonsense" referred to my post, not the comparison only. If you re-read you will probably see what I mean.
None-the-less, we are situated in the same trench!
My last word for Harland And Wolfe Ship Yard
(Without any Swearing )
Forget wind turbines
Your just being payed tax payers money to make nothing
May as well all be down the Dole Office signing on
GET INTO SHALE GAS
You can all be the next JR Ewings
You got peace at last now make it pay